Telangana High Court
WP/39525/2014 of Dr. JASVEEN JAIRATH, Vs The State Public Information Officer-cum- on 31 December 2014
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.39525 of 2014 ORDER: Heard Sri I. Mallikarjuna Sarma, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the conduct of respondent Nos.1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.39525 of 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard Sri I. Mallikarjuna Sarma, learned counsel for petitionerand Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ ofMandamus to declare the conduct of respondent Nos.1 and 2relating to petitioner’s request dt.03-06-2013 under the Right toInformation Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) as unjust,unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and violating hisfundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of theConstitution of India and his rights under the said Act, and todirect to imposition of maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- each onrespondents under Section 20 of the Act.Mandamus to declare the conduct of respondent Nos.1 and 2relating to petitioner’s request dt.03-06-2013 under the Right toInformation Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) as unjust,unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and violating hisfundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of theConstitution of India and his rights under the said Act, and todirect to imposition of maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- each onrespondents under Section 20 of the Act.
3. The petitioner had made an application on 03-06-2013 underthe Act to the 1[st] respondent to furnish certain information. The the Act to the 1[st] respondent to furnish certain information. The 1[st] respondent rejected the petitioner’s request by order dt.23-09-2013.
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 21-10-2013 to the 2[nd] respondent against the order of the 1[st] respondent. The said respondent against the order of the 1[st] respondent. The saidappeal was numbered as Appeal No.196 of 2013, and the 2[nd]respondent, by order dt.30-11-2013, allowed it and remitted thematter back to the respondent, by order dt.30-11-2013, allowed it and remitted thematter back to the 1[st] respondent to consider the matter afresh and passappropriate orders on the petitioner’s application.appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application.
5. Thereafter the petitioner appears to have sent a reminder to the 1[st] respondent on 17-01-2014. The 1[st] respondent passedorders rejecting the petitioner’s request by order dt.14-02-2014.
6. The petitioner again preferred an appeal No.59 of 2014 on 06-03-2014 to the 2[nd] respondent. The said appeal continues tobe pending with the 2[nd] respondent and no orders are passedthereon.06-03-2014 to the 2[nd] respondent. The said appeal continues tobe pending with the 2[nd] respondent and no orders are passedthereon.
7. The main contention of the petitioner in the Writ Petition wasthat the appeal filed on 06-03-2014 to the 2[nd] respondent waspending, that no further orders were being passed thereon andsuch inaction on the part of 2[nd] respondent was violating herrights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Indiaand provisions of the Act.that the appeal filed on 06-03-2014 to the 2[nd] respondent waspending, that no further orders were being passed thereon andsuch inaction on the part of 2[nd] respondent was violating herrights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Indiaand provisions of the Act.
8. It is now brought to my notice by both sides that the appeal wasdisposed of on 24-04-2014 by the 2[nd] respondent. So the causein the Writ Petition no longer survives for adjudication.disposed of on 24-04-2014 by the 2[nd] respondent. So the causein the Writ Petition no longer survives for adjudication.
9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infuctuous. Liberty isgranted to petitioner to question the order dt.24-04-2014 inAppeal No.59 of 2014 passed by the 2[nd] respondent in aseparate appropriate proceeding. No costs.granted to petitioner to question the order dt.24-04-2014 inAppeal No.59 of 2014 passed by the 2[nd] respondent in aseparate appropriate proceeding. No costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shallstand disposed of.stand disposed of.
Date: 21-04-2015
Vsv/*
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO